
Author 



Title 



Qass ..JT 



• B/sTs 



Imprint 



10— OTM'tt-H «f>0 



address of 
DeCOURCY w. thom, 

Of " Blakeford," Queen Anne's County, Maryland, 

PRESENTINO TO 

The City of Baltimore, 

ON NOVEMBER 21st, 1908, 

IN BEHALF OF 

THE SOCIETY OF COLONIAL WARS 

in the State of Maryland and of all others 
who participated in the gift, 

The Statue in Bronze of Cecilius Calvert, 

SECOND LORD BALTIMORE, 

The Founder of Maryland. 



Press of King Bros., 
Printers and Publishers, 

1908. 



address of 
DeCOURCY w.' thom, 

Of " Blakeford," Queen Anne's County, Maryland, 

PRESENTING TO 

The City of Baltimore, 

ON NOVEMBER 21st, 1908, 

IN BEHALF OF 

THE SOCIETY OF COLONIAL WARS 

in the State of Maryland and of all others 
who participated in the gift, 

The statue in Bronze of Cecilius Calvert, 

SECOND LORD BALTIMORE, 

The Founder of Maryland, 



Peess of King BEOS., 
JPeintees and publisheks, 

1908. 






GIFT 

WRS. WOODHOW \W1LS0N 
KOV. 23, 1939 



Governor Crotliers, Our Invited Guests, 
Ladies and Gentlemen: 
''History is past Politics, and Politics is present History," 
said a great English Historian. His saying is virtually true, 
yet among its infelicities is the major one that it seems to 
emphasize the man-made element in History, and not at all 
bring to the attention the supreme fact that through the ages 
one increasing Purpose runs and that in fulness of Time 
''Good shall be the final end of all." Shall one help on- 
ward that Divine Consummation, or shall one retard it? 
That is really the chiefest test of every life. But though one 
retard as in the olden days did all but tv70 of that mighty 
host of the "Chosen ITation" unto v^hom was promised the 
land of Palestine flowing with milk and honey, yet shall the 
promise be kept unto the nation, though in it there shall yet 
survive of the original wayfarers, only two who have stead- 
fastly helped achieve the divinely stated plan. This illustra- 
tion of the onward surge of History I have always preferred 
to the one first quoted. And throughout the long annals of 
the human race religion, as its very name implies, has been 
the chiefest influence in the inter-relationships of men. The 
ethical codes of Confucius, of Brahma, of Buddha, of Mo- 
hammed, despite their earthly stains, have caused the coher- 
ence of untold millions, whilst the Old Testament and the 
pure teaching of the Meek N^azarine, have planted in the 
hearts of unnumbered throngs the tenderest yearnings to help 
one's fellows. And to every good man from the Beginning 
until now has come the longing to Do Justice, To Love 
Mercy and to walk humbly with his God. So ran the world 
away through the Ancient Times, through the Middle Ages, 
until those days in Olde Englande "when civil fury first 
grew high and men fell out they knew not why," and "pulpit 



drum ecclesiastic was beat with fist instead of a stick," until, 
indeed, there had arrived the days of that most unhappy king, 
the first Charles of England. Perhaps the political differ- 
ences of his people, might not have produced civil war; but 
their seeking to promote what seemed to each faction the 
truths of religion, brought on their dreadful internecine strug- 
gle. All factions desired a ISTational Church. The question 
was, should that Church be Roman, Anglican or Puritan; 
should it be governed by Bishops or by Presbyters ; were the 
theological doctrines of Trent, of Augsburg or of Geneva to 
rule in Great Britain ? For the religious compromise of Eliza- 
bethan days, with its "Act of Supremacy," its "Act of Uni- 
formity" and its "Thirty-nine Articles," had lost general fa- 
vor and irked the zealous adherents of Rome or of Geneva. 
The Church of Rome was firm as crystal in its tenets, and 
the Genevans — the Presbyterian Church — were equally set 
in its doctrinal beliefs. In the swing and sway of the popular 
mind throughout the past few reigns — through the sometimes 
barbarous though mainly statesmanlike handling of religious 
questions under the great Elizabeth — through ]\iary's doings 
— through the tolerant Protestantism of James and the nar- 
rowness of Charles — through the flux of all those troublous 
times — there remained steadfast, militant, girding for the 
fray, the two opposing absolutisms — the Roman and the Ge- 
nevan, which latter became in England the Puritan. ISTow, 
the Roman party was united. The Puritan consisted : — 

First, of the Evangelical Churchmen, or Conforming Puri- 
tans, who accepted Episcopacy, but not the "right divine" of 
kings : 

Secondly, the Presbyterian, demanding exclusive ascend- 
ency, and that the IN'ational Church be modeled precisely as 
John Calvin's Commentaries set forth; and the Presbyterian 
Church asserted its "right divine" no less stoutly than the 
Stuart kings asserted theirs : 



Thirdly, the Independents or Congregationalists, destined, 
because of their votary Cromwell, their victories in battle and 
their individuality, congregation by congregation, to predomi- 
nate in the Puritan triumph. 

The Anglican party became submerged after a concen- 
trated effort to subjugate the Calvanistic spirit in the Re- 
formed Church of England, or, as Archbishop Laud put it, "to 
have recognized the Divine Origin and rights of Episcopacy, 
the Apostolic succession, the necessity of a visible Church, the 
doctrine of sacramental grace and the propriety of order, de- 
cency and reverence in Christian worship." 

In the fierce struggle of the creeds the Roman lost first to 
Puritan; whereupon the Independents, led by the mighty 
Cromwell and asserting individualism as contrasted with the 
"right divine" of Presbyterianism, became the triumphant fac- 
tion of the triumphant Puritans. All England was distraught : 
Sweet kindliness from man to man was banished, because of 
doctrinal differences. Though the gentle Founder of Chris- 
tianity had belonged to no denomination, and preached such 
broad and inclusive doctrine as the Sermon on the Mount, 
the Christians of England, in the days of Charles the First, 
grew to slaughter one another, because of petty differences in 
religious views. What a revolting spectacle to the thoughtful 
student of modem times ! The political troubles under James 
I and Charles I, may be said roughly to resolve themselves 
into the various phases of the efforts of those Kings for abso- 
lutism, in opposition to the struggle of noble Englishmen to 
preserve those glorious precedents which, broadening slowly 
down, had come to make the English Constitution the freest 
then extant. 

Such were the times — restless, bitter, furious, intolerant. 
Was there no refuge from such a welter? Did the lands 
beyond the seas, offer no nepenthe? 'Naj, they called for 
active spirits to subdue them: Peace for the troubled con- 



6: 



science, Refuge from warring friends, Rest for the tired 
worker in old questions, and Dynamic work for one's family, 
for one's native land, and for the race, lay yonder beyond the 
broad Atlantic main. So, it seems to me, must have called 
the opportunities on this Continent, especially to the two ear- 
lier Calverts. 

Sir George Calvert, trained man of affairs, ex-Secretary 
of State, of an adventurous turn of mind, one who had been 
a convinced Protestant, and had become an equally convinced 
Romanist, undismayed by his disastrous failure in trying to 
settle his grant of Avalon, in Newfoundland, determined to 
found a Colony, in which came to be called Maryland. He 
there designed tolerance of all Christian religions; he de- 
signed for himself abstraction and interest in founding here 
an enterprise far removed from the wrangling of his old asso- 
ciates ; he desig-ned here to nurse the fortunes of his family ; 
but, above all, he, the veteran Statesman, designed to estab 
lish so far as might be, the Utopian settlement dreamed of by 
the good and great Sir Thomas More, where Separation of 
Church and State, Freedom of Religious Worship according 
to any Chi-istian form, and Manhood Suffrage could be prac- 
ticed. Sir George Calvert, created Lord Baltimore in 1624, 
died two months before the Charter of Maryland passed the 
Great Seal, and it was granted to his eldest son Cecilius, 
second Lord Baltimore, who was fully sympathetic with all 
his father's plans and "trod in his paths." Upon both their 
minds, had shone the Utopian views of the great Chancellor 
Sir Thomas More, through the curious happening, that his 
great-grandson. Father Henry More, who, like all the Chan- 
cellor's descendants, venerated all his views, was the close 
comrade of the first Lord Baltimore when Secretary of State, 
and, it is believed, both his chaplain in his retirement and 
the tutor of his son Cecilius. LTnder all these ameliorating 
influences, then, did Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore, calm 



and statesmanlike and steady and of sturdy businesslike dis- 
position, take up the task of settling his Palatinate of Mary- 
land. Tolerance, Peace, Success were the main motives actu- 
ating him. Charles the First, who granted the charter was a 
Protestant ; Cecilius Calvert was a Romanist. The charter 
called for Freedom of Religious worship according to any 
Christian form. Cecilius Calvert's letter of instruction to the 
little band of two hundred colonists in the Ark and the Dove 
inculcated that same tolerance in religion; and that one hun- 
dred and twenty-eight of the two hundred colonists, took the 
oath of "allegiance," just prior to embarking, proves that 
number to have been Protestants ; and as the other seventy 
two are not recorded as so declaring themselves, we may cou 
elude, that they were Romanists. These seventy- two, who had 
"forsaken the ship" prior to the administering of the oath of 
"allegiance," re-embarked at the Isle of Wight, but many 
others who had disembarked with them, did not rejoin the lit- 
tle squadron. Turn to Volume V, Archives of Maryland: 
Proceedings of the Council, 1667-1687, pp. 267-268, and 
read what testimony, Charles, third Lord Baltimore, son of 
Cecilius, and from 1661 till 1675, resident Governor of Mary- 
land, gave in writing in 1678, to the Lords of the Committee 
of Trade and Plantations, as to the toleration exacted by the 
colonists before sailing, and explaining, why it would be dan- 
gerous to scrutinize the religious complexion of the colonists in 
Maryland, and asserting, that making exhaustive scrutinies 
"would certaynly either endanger Insurrections or a General 
Dis-peopleing of the Provynce, which is at present in great 
peace and Quiett, all persons there being secured to their con- 
tent, for a quiett enjoyment of everything that they cann Rea- 
sonably desyne. The Reason why such scrutinyes would be 
thus Dangerous, is that vizt. That at the first planteing of this 
Provynce by my ffather. Albeit he had an absolute Liberty 
given him and his heirs to carry thither any Persons out of 



8 

any of the Dominions that belonged to the Crowne of Eng- 
land who should be found wylling to goe thither, yett when 
he came to make use of this Liberty, He found very few who 
were inclyned to goe and seat themselves in those parts. But 
such as for some Reason or other could not lyve with ease in 
other places. And of these a great parte, were such as could 
not conforme in all particulars to the severall Lawes of Eng- 
land relateing to Religion; many they were of this sort of 
People who declared their Wyllingness to goe and plant them- 
selves in this Provynce, soe as they might have a Generall 
Toleraccon settled there by a Lawe by which all of all sorts 
who professed Christianity in Generall, might be at Liberty to 
worship God in such manner as was most agreeable with their 
respective Judgement and Consciences, without being subject 
to any penaltyes whatsoever, for their soe doeing, Provyded 
the Civill peace were preserved. And that for the securing 
the civill peace and preventing all heats Feuds, which were 
generally observed to happen, amongst such as differ in opyn- 
ions upon Occasion of Reproachful Nicknames and Reflect- 
ing upon each other's Oppynions, it might by the same Lawe 
be made Penall to give any offence in that kynde. These 
were the condicons proposed by such as were willing to goe 
and be the first planters of this Provynce, and without the 
complying with these condicons, in all probability This Prov- 
ynce had never beene iilanted. To these condicons, my ffather 
agreed, and accordingly soon after the first planteing of this 
Provynce, these conditions by the unanimous consent of all 
who were concerned, were passed into a Lawe and the inhab- 
itants of this Provynce have found such effects from this 
Lawe and from the strict observance of it as well in relation 
to their Quiett as in Religion to the farther peopleing of this 
Provynce That they looke on it, as that whereon alone de- 
pends the preservation of their Peace Their Propertyes and 
their Libertyes. This beinge the true state of the case of this 



Provynce it is easy to Judge what consequencyes might ensue, 
upon any scrutinyes which should be made in order to the sat- 
isfyeing theis particular Inquiryes." 

Plainly the Colony of Maryland was intended by its owner 
and the colonists to be "The Land of the Sanctuary," and 
not in any sense a polemical ground. Today the blessed recog- 
nition of the fact, that the spirit of belief, and not its formal 
expression, is the solemn need of every human soul has swept 
gloriously forward ; but two and three-quarter centuries ago, 
that truism found affirmation in no country, save the little 
Colony of Maryland. And here, too, Cecilius Calvert inaugu- 
rated separation of Church and State. And here, also, he 
inaugurated in modem times, the doctrine of one vote to 
every freeman. Has Maryland retained those three helpful 
characteristics with which she started, or has she improved 
them or lost them ? Plainly, she has shared with all the West- 
ern World, in the growth unto full tolerance, of every form of 
pure religious worship. Therein our beloved State has mark- 
edly improved. 

And there has been no retrogression as to separation of 
Church and State. 

But how as to the equality of voting of every freeman ? 

In the early days of Cecilius Calvert, every freeman was 
summoned to the General Assembly; and in the later portion 
of his government, when population had grown much greater, 
every freeman in every "hundred," was allowed to vote as to 
who should be that hundred's representative, and even then, 
might elect to personally appear and vote in the General As- 
sembly. 

Today our condition is sadly changed from that equal rep- 
resentation. 

Certain Electoral Districts of Maryland, inhabited by, say, 
twenty-two per cent, of the total population of the State, re- 



10 



turn a majority of the Legislature. If any man, or group of 
men, desire to control legislation, or legislative offices, or 
legislative franchises and privileges, the patent way is to con- 
trol elections in the Electoral Districts I have indicated. 
Clearly, the easy way to do that, is to control the make- weight 
vote of the dominant party in that party's primary, and there- 
by gain the nomination, and the adherence, of that blind group 
of voters, who always vote their party ticket. Now, if any 
man, or group of men, in Maryland be willing to use money, 
promise of office or of political co-operation in order to pur- 
chase the support of enough of the make-weight vote in the 
Electoral Districts I have mentioned as returning a majority 
of the Legislature, so as to secure the nomination by the domi- 
nant party of the candidates of that man, or of that group 
of men, they will find, that the last Legislature made it per- 
fectly safe to attemj)t it, by enacting that in a legalized pri- 
mary, a ballot may be prepared away from the voting booth. 
Such provision can segregate seller and buyer beyond any pos- 
sibility of betrayal, for at the very utmost, an accusation of 
bribery, could be met by flat denial, incapable of correction. 
Such a system admits the safe expenditure by one man, 
or by a group of men, of whatever sums or other considera- 
tions are needed, to buy the success of the favored faction, 
in any Electoral District's struggle in the primaries. The 
favored faction, thus securing the label of the dominant party 
for its nominees, almost inevitably elects them. This proc- 
ess applied throughout the State produces a majority of 
the Legislature. Now, under such circumstances, would that 
majority feel under obligations to the respective organizations 
of the Electoral Districts which had processed them into of- 
fice ? Would the Electoral District organizations feel under 
obligations to the man, or men, who put up money or other 
considerations to buy the possibility of their being retained in 
local control? If so, they and their legislative nominees 



11 



would naturally vote office, legislation or opportunity to the 
providers of the money, which had enabled them to conquer. 
Does this oligarchical method of control exist in Maryland, 
or do the 78 per cent, of our population return a majority of 
the Legislature? Ah! it is 22 per cent, of our population 
that returns a majority of the Legislature ! Then majority 
rule has been abandoned in this good old colonial State, and we 
think grossly unequal representation in the Legislature, is con- 
sonant with our doctrine of the Revolutionary struggle, which 
declared against taxation without representation ! What is 
this gross inequality of representation in the Legislature ? 
Why, in some cases it is unequal in the proportion of one to 
eight, for in one County two hundred and fifty voters can 
constitute a member of the Legislature, whilst it takes two 
thousand Baltimore voters to constitute one. To permit 
twenty-two per cent, of the population, to hold seventy-eight 
per cent, of it in subjugation, is very acceptable to exploiters 
of the situation, of course, but sufficiently accounts for oft-re- 
peated failures to develope Maryland at large. And, more con- 
cretely, it explains, why Baltimore, inhabited by nearly half 
of the population of Maryland, and paying approximately 
three-fourths of all the taxes of the State, makes no greater ad- 
vance than she does. Now, any failure in the growi;h and fa- 
cilities of Baltimore, is a serious blow to every Marylander, 
and to every Maryland interest. How does our oligarchical 
system hold back the developement of Baltimore, Avhich pays 
nearly three-quarters of all the taxes of the State ? In many 
ways: For example: — 

First — The Legislatures, elected as I have shown, have by 
statutes exempted from State taxation, every financial obliga- 
tion put out by any Maryland County ; but every financial ob- 
ligation of the City of Baltimore held by any inhabitant of a 
County, has to have State taxes paid upon it ; 



12 



Second — The vast preponderance of license taxes are paid 
by Baltimore City, but ^i^idfC^oi those taxes are taken by 
the rest of the State; 

Third — The School Fund, contributed chiefly by Baltimore 
City, is taken largely by the rest of the State ; 

Fourth — The Good Koads Five Million loan, is based upon 
the responsibility of Baltimore to the extent of about seventy- 
five per cent. ; but vi^ill Baltimore receive even twenty-five per 
cent, of it ? These illustrations vs^ill suffice. 

And if these illustrations are accurate, it is evident that Bal- 
time, so deprived of the local spending power of most of the 
great sums she thus pays, must yet defray her local bills, and 
must forego many a needed improvement and facility. Under 
stress of these conditions, she has been forced to a most detri- 
mental basis of taxation on real estate, and has been kept from 
that broad-gauged treating of possible new capital and oppor- 
tunities, which many of her rival cities enjoy. Why should 
Baltimore banking capital be taxed about five times as much 
as Philadelphia banking capital ? Why should not Baltimore 
develops a freight road from its manufacturing centre to some 
common shipping point, reached through a reciprocal switch- 
ing charge? Which of the other great cities of this country 
lacks that facility? Why does Baltimore languish compara- 
tively in a business way and incidentally injure all Maryland 
thereby ? I will tell you : Her population, numbering nearly 
seven hundred thousand — that is, nearly half of the population 
of Maryland — are content to have only about one-fifth of the 
members of the Legislature, and to be mulcted of their money 
and to be held down by those provisions of our laws which 
keep all this deal old State, at the mercy of a minority who 
perpetuate their power as I have indicated. 

Pardon me, if in contrast to the third great principle which 
Ibis man, Cecilius Calvert, implanted in Maryland — I mean 



13 

the principle of equal representation of the voters in their 
framing of the laws — pardon me, I say, if in contrast with 
that principle of equal representation, the actual and baneful 
and grossly unequal representation of the voter in framing 
the laws through which our beloved State must now be helped, 
or held back, has moved me to this individual protest, against 
the unfairness and the untowardness, to which in this regard, 
we have descended since the days of the Founder of Mary- 
land. 

Not equal representation, but the absurd reverse of it, han- 
dicaps Maryland today, and the corallaries, unequal taxation, 
and opportunities made unequal through consequent legisla- 
tion, burden and weaken the normal Marylander, and present 
to him a ludicrous contrast with that maxim of the Revolu- 
tionady days, which declared against Taxation without Repre- 
sentation, 

But T have held you too long, while I unavoidably dwelt 
upon the historical contrast between the old standards and 
the new. 

T turn now to the vei-y complimentary and grateful .duty 
which the Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Maryland 
has kindly assigned to me. They have commissioned me, Mr. 
Mayor, to present to this fair City of Monuments, another 
monument in the form of this statue of Cecilius Calvert, sec- 
ond Lord Baltimore, Founder of Maryland, and establisher 
for the first time in the English-speaking world, of Freedom 
of Worship, according to any Christian form, and of Separa- 
tion of Church and State. Of his relationship towards equal 
representation of every voter in the framing of the laws of 
Maryland, I have spoken, I need not speak of the goodness 
of his character: God-led, he wrought for righteousness. 

The statue of this man I present, in the name of the Society 
of Colonial Wars in the State of Maryland and of all who 



14 

have contributed to the construction of it, to the City of Balti- 
more, which was named in commemoration of his family, and 
I humbly pray, that all the Wisdom, Freedom and Fairness 
which he typified, may yet fill our Commonwealth and en- 
dure beyond the life of this perpetual bronze, which showeth 
forth Cecilius Calvert, Founder of Maryland. 

De Courcy W. Thom. 
Baltimore, Md., November 21st, 1908. 



